美國參議院多數黨領袖、共和黨議員麥康奈爾日前明確表示，參議院今年不會對跨太平洋夥伴關係協定（TPP）進行表決。之前眾議院議長、共和黨議員瑞安也曾表示，由於缺乏足夠議員支持，眾議院今年不會對TPP進行投票。美國參眾兩院大佬齊聲對TPP說“不”，令TPP半途擱淺，前景暗淡。

人算不如天算。年初時奧巴馬對國會批准TPP還信心滿滿，並把此項工作作為今年政府工作的“一號工程”，政府大員紛紛下基層，宣講TPP重要性，爭取民眾支持。然而，隨着大選的深入，反對自由貿易情緒持續升溫。雖然兩黨總統候選人吵得不可開交，但是他們有一點是共同的，即對多邊自由貿易協議都持反對立場。

特朗普指責TPP是“可怕的協定”，“一個毫無所獲、只有麻煩的協定”，承諾不再舉行多邊貿易談判。希拉里從在擔任國務卿期間大力推動TPP談判也轉而不贊成現在的TPP內容，認為它沒有達到“為美國創造好工作、提高薪水並加強我們國家安全的”高標準，承諾如果當選美國總統會堅決反對TPP。

美國選情嬗變，兩黨總統候選人一致反對TPP，主要原因是經濟全球化所帶來的精英階層盡享好處，而廣大工薪階層飽受衝擊的兩極分化引發普通選民對生活水平長期得不到提升的不滿和憤怒，對貿易自由化反感和抵制。

去年美國國會授予TPP“快速通道”，奧巴馬靠的是共和黨人的支持。此次國會審批TPP，奧巴馬也想如法炮製。但是，共和黨7月中旬通過的新競選綱領，一反過去堅持自由貿易的傳統，提出採取保就業的“新公平貿易政策”，重新談判北美自由貿易協定，反對國會批准TPP。

在這樣的大背景下，國會內的共和黨人士紛紛“改旗易幟”，奧巴馬在共和黨內支持者人數嚴重縮水。這也是為什麼麥康奈爾和瑞安打退堂鼓的原因，如果奧巴馬強行闖關，只會碰得頭破血流。美國會領導人期望奧巴馬知難而退，為下屆政府重新“激活”TPP留有餘地。

綜上所述，奧巴馬希望11月大選之後國會批准TPP的打算將落空，未來TPP可能面臨四種選項。

其一，美國向內看，徹底放棄TPP，放棄為亞太地區乃至全球制定貿易規制；

其二，重新談判TPP，修改部分利益集團特別不滿的條款，如美國勞聯和產聯認為TPP對勞工、環境保護以及公眾衛生健康重視不夠；美國製藥、煙草、金融和汽車業對某些條款不滿意，要求政府對此重新談判；

其三，在基本不動的大前題下，對當前版TPP進行小修小補；

其四，重演當年比爾•克林頓總統應對北美自由貿易協定戲碼，選前反對TPP，選後遊說國會批准TPP。

以筆者觀察，第一、第四項幾無可能。美國還要領導世界一百年，不可能放棄制定全球貿易規制的話語權與主導權。按照當前民調，希拉里有可能在大選中勝出，她已明確表示當上總統也不會支持當前版TPP，其信譽恐難承受得起再次食言的風險。

第二和第三項有可能成為新政府的選項。然而，當前版TPP是經過六年多談判之後達成的相互妥協和利益交換的產物，重新談判等於從重頭開始，再有一個六年也不一定能打得住。至於第三項，不但取決新的國會的組成，也取決其他成員國的配合，國內和國外的協商非一朝一夕之功。無論哪種選項，TPP都將被長時間擱置，前景充滿不確定性。

TPP是奧巴馬“亞太再平衡”戰略兩大支柱之一，也是奧巴馬全力打造告別白宮生涯時最重要的政治遺產之一，TPP擱置將重創美國“亞太再平衡”戰略，重創美國領導力。美國有必要重新審視亞太，以開放和包容心態，共享發展與合作共贏的精神，制定新的TPP戰略。

US Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell made it clear recently that the Senate will not put the Trans-Pacific Partnership to a vote this year. And House Speaker Paul Ryan said earlier that the House of Representatives, due to insufficient support from members, would not vote on the TPP this year. When the two influential leaders of the Congress said nay to the TPP, it cast a shadow over the fate of the deal.

At the beginning of this year, President Obama was fully confident that the Congress would approve the TPP, and considered its passage a priority for his administration. To get this done, the big shots of the Obama administration even went the distance to preach the importance of the TPP to win voters' support. During the ongoing presidential elections, however, anti-globalization and anti-free trade sentiments have been running high. The two presidential candidates tend to disagree on everything, but they share one thing in common: their opposition to the multilateral free-trade agreements.

Donald Trump categorized the TPP as “a horrible deal” and “a deal that is going to lead to nothing but trouble.” He even vowed not to hold any multilateral trade talks. Hillary Clinton, who vigorously promoted the TPP talks when she was the secretary of state, has now changed her tune and disagrees with the current contents of the TPP, saying it fails to meet the high standards for a successful deal: “create good jobs at home, raise wages and be in the national security interest”. Like Trump, she also promised to resolutely oppose the TPP if she is elected president.

As the elections head into the final months, the two candidates showed their opposition to the TPP. The main reason is that special interest or elite groups bask in the benefits brought about by economic globalization while the mass public or wage earners continue to suffer. This triggered strong resentment among voters who are dissatisfied with the slow improvement in the living standards, and consequently their dislike and opposition of trade liberalization.

With support from Republicans, the Congress last year gave President Obama the fast-track authority to complete the trade deal. When it came time for the Congress to approve the TPP, Obama wanted to follow the same approach. However, the situation has changed. In mid-July, the Republican Party adopted a new campaign blueprint, backtracking from its traditions in supporting free trade, proposing a new fair-trade policy in which employment is protected, renegotiating the North America Free Trade Agreement and opposing Congressional approval of the TPP.

In such a changing environment, many Republicans in the Congress also changed their minds, leading to a sharp shrinking of the Republican support for Obama. Probably, this is also the reason why McConnell and Ryan withdrew their support for the deal. If Obama insisted on pressing ahead with a vote, he would likely be doomed to fail. The Congressional leaders hoped that Obama would react soberly to the current difficult situation and leave some leeway for the next administration to “reactivate” the TPP.

Obama's hope of getting the TPP approved after the presidential elections in November seems even less likely, and there will be four options for the TPP in the future.

One, the US begins to focus on domestic issues, abandons the TPP, and stops making trade rules for the Asia-Pacific region and the world.

Two, the US tries to renegotiate the TPP deal and modify some clauses that the special-interest groups oppose. For instance, the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations believes that the TPP fails to attach enough attention to labor, environmental protection and public health, and such US industries as pharmaceutical, tobacco, finance and automobile also disagree with some clauses and are asking the government to renegotiate those clauses.

Three, with the main framework and contents remaining unchanged, make minor changes and revisions to the current version of the TPP; and

Four, both candidates could follow the footsteps of Bill Clinton in dealing with the North America Free Trade Agreement: Oppose the deal before the presidential election, and then lobby the Congress to approve it after the elections.

This writer believes that neither the first nor the fourth is an option. The US still wants to lead the world for another 100 years and will surely not abandon its rights and dominance in formulating global trade rules. Based on current opinion polls, Hillary Clinton is likely to be the winner in this year's election. She has expressly said that she would not support the current version of the TPP if she wins.

The second and the third are possible options for the new government. The fact is, however, the current TPP was a hard-won result after six years of extensive talks, compromises and interest swaps, and if renegotiation is started, it will probably take six more years or even longer to wrap up the new talks. As for the third, it not only depends on the composition of the new Congress but also on the cooperation of other member nations, and it could not be an easy job to reach consensus both on the domestic and international fronts. Whatever the option might be, it is certain that the TPP will be delayed for a long time and the TPP's future is full of uncertainties.

The TPP is one of the two pillars in Obama's strategy of rebalancing to the Asia-Pacific region, and also one of the most important political legacies he has tried to build before he exits the White House. Any delay in approving the TPP will deal a heavy blow to the US rebalance to the Asia-Pacific region, and also to the US leadership in the world. The US needs to reassess the Asia-Pacific region, and with an open and inclusive mentality and the spirit of common development and win-win cooperation, work out a new strategy on the TPP.